U.S. Forces "Incompetent"

Originally posted by Seekerof
Even a broken clock gives the correct time twice a day, as such, your statistical analysis and number documentation used were what, exactly, to
constitute "they handed your butt back to you on a plate" were?

Sorry, I am not sure but, is english your first language? I will try and answer what I think you are trying to ask.

So you consider the outcome of your activities in Vietnam and Somalia as being victories? I forget to mention Korea as well.The hard work of winning
WWII was done before you even joined in, yet we hear about that ad nauseam.

Tell me when did the US, in recent times, beat an enemy that actually had a military? Picking on small countries is not the mark of a great and
fantastic military force.

Is English your first language?
Do you have difficulty answering what was asked in English?

Your questions will be answered when you adequately answer mine.

As for this drivel:

So you consider the outcome of your activities in Vietnam and Somalia as being victories? I forget to mention Korea as well.The hard work of winning
WWII was done before you even joined in, yet we hear about that ad nauseam.

You might want to consider staying on your meds or maybe getting off of them?

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
I'd expect better behaviour off a WATS winner. No need to be insulting, I honestly thought english was your second language from your post, so no
need to get your knickers in a twist.

Perhaps so, but the lesson was learned was it not?
That lesson being that we do unto others as we have them do unto us?
Apparently and unbeknown or undeciphered by you, you failed to realize that asking me if English was my first language was found to be offensive to
myself. As such, you simply recieved what you gave.

So you consider the outcome of your activities in Vietnam and Somalia as being victories? I forget to mention Korea as well.The hard work of winning
WWII was done before you even joined in, yet we hear about that ad nauseam.

Tell me when did the US, in recent times, beat an enemy that actually had a military? Picking on small countries is not the mark of a great and
fantastic military force.

small size is not really relevant. u could say that during the Korean war, the U.S. was outnumbered big time with the NK and Chinese forces combined.
North Korea is small and invades South Korea with the U.S. there. so they pretty much felt they can beat America easily.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Did you read the bit about all stores used up? Doesn't matter what your ROE are if you have no bullets left to shoot. You can't switch from
civilian, peacetime economy to war production that quickly.

So now the US doesn't have any weapons?

Oh, boy.

Allow me to explain, again, this time in simple, single-concept sentences.

Sebia. Small country. Formerly part of Yugoslavia. Committing genocidal policies in the Kosovo Valley.

US. Large country. Member of NATO. Angry at these policies. NATO also angry. Decide to do something.

US afraid of body bags. Have been since 1973. Decide on "air war" against Serbia.

Serbia - small country, don't forget.

At end of air campaign Serbia submit to peace process. Yay for democracy.

US planners look at aircraft stores. Almost empty. Hmm, short campaign. Used up almost everything. Lucky they weren't the Russians we were fighting.
Maybe our planning was a little off. Hmm. Need to do something. Hmm. How long until we replenish? Hmm.

China. World's biggest country. World's biggest military.

That was ten years ago, I'd assume you've managed to replace at least some of it by now.

If you ran out of stores bombing Serbia in a short time, how are you going to last against China? Have you ramped up production and warehousing of
stores, or are you still running at '90s levels. Not to mention a war that was just fought.

And you really think you have enough conventional cruise missiles to destroy China's industrial capacity, lock stock and barrel without having to
invade?

Really big bouncing smileys.

Have you looked at a map lately? That's one of the most dispersed countries in the world.

Dispersing air assets to highways was first practiced by the Germans and is a standard tactic of the Sweidish and Pakistani airforces. Because it
works.

Originally posted by deltaboy
small size is not really relevant. u could say that during the Korean war, the U.S. was outnumbered big time with the NK and Chinese forces combined.
North Korea is small and invades South Korea with the U.S. there. so they pretty much felt they can beat America easily.

Well, Korea in the 50's was a situation where the US, still hopped up after WWII, not far from full war mode tried to demonstrate it's new prowess
in the region and got a rude awakening.

I always wonder what would have happened if they had gone through with dropping a few A-Bombs on Korea as well? Would we have the same playing fields
today? What if Russia had decided to make a move on Japan? A different discussion for a different thread perhaps.

The point is, while the US has a massive military and logistical machine at it's disposal, it is spread very thin. It will always amuse me the
arguments used in US vs. Whoever discussions, here in our new home in the Weaponary forum.

A lot of arguments move into the fantasy realm, it is like watching someone play Risk or C&C. There is no situation where the US is going to bring
it's full power to bear on any one region, as it would leave them with their pants down in other regions. So when you have people saying, oh we have
300 jets and they have like 15 Migs or whatever, without considering the logistics of having 300 jets brought to the same region, the arguments do
take on the "My Dad can beat your Dad tone" we all love and adore.

As for competence, well I am not saying they are "F" Troop or anything like that, but the US is far from being what it is portrayed in the movies.
Or conversely, as bad as it is represented in the liberal media.

Originally posted by howmuchisthedoggy
Well, Korea in the 50's was a situation where the US, still hopped up after WWII, not far from full war mode tried to demonstrate it's new prowess
in the region and got a rude awakening.

Excuse me? The US accomplished it's UN mandated goal of restoring the original boarders.

I always wonder what would have happened if they had gone through with dropping a few A-Bombs on Korea as well? Would we have the same playing
fields today?

Likely China would have gotten involved and we would have had to nuke them as well. Not a fun alternate universe...

What if Russia had decided to make a move on Japan? A different discussion for a different thread perhaps.

Yeah, this is not the time or place for it. However, it would have gone to WWIII, with full on nuclear war. Honestly, I do not believe there was any
point where Russia could have made a move on Japan with an advantage over the US.

The point is, while the US has a massive military and logistical machine at it's disposal, it is spread very thin. It will always amuse me the
arguments used in US vs. Whoever discussions, here in our new home in the Weaponary forum.

Not as thin as you seem to think. Every one points to Iraq as why the US is spread thin. There are about 100,000 US armed service men in Iraq, and
about 2 million the US military. Thats 5% there. The US has plenty to go around.

A lot of arguments move into the fantasy realm, it is like watching someone play Risk or C&C. There is no situation where the US is going to
bring it's full power to bear on any one region, as it would leave them with their pants down in other regions.

On this I agree, though in a conflict with China you can be assured that just about every resource but the minimum would be brought to bare.

So when you have people saying, oh we have 300 jets and they have like 15 Migs or whatever, without considering the logistics of having 300
jets brought to the same region, the arguments do take on the "My Dad can beat your Dad tone" we all love and adore.

Tone aside, when would the US ever need to get to a 1:1 ratio in anything? Frankly, with our superior technology and high level training, along with
great logistics etc, the US will never need an equal number of jets or ships or tanks as the enemy.

As for competence, well I am not saying they are "F" Troop or anything like that, but the US is far from being what it is portrayed in the
movies. Or conversely, as bad as it is represented in the liberal media.

All I can say is this...

The US Marine Corps inflicted the highest kill ratio in the history of modern combat.

A division of less then 12,500 Marines destroyed 7 divisions each of which were more then 16,500. This while outnumbered 29:1 and surrounded by 22
divisions. This is in that war where the US got "a rude awakening"

Not as thin as you seem to think. Every one points to Iraq as why the US is spread thin. There are about 100,000 US armed service men in Iraq, and
about 2 million the US military. Thats 5% there. The US has plenty to go around.

Interesting, to any one who don’t understand the makeup of the modern military machine would list that as a fair comment, but to others with some
experience, two words come to mind, and bull is one of them.

Of those 100,000 how many are ICT techs, how many of those are mechs, how many of those are engineers, intelligence staff, company staff, public
relations, cooks, chaplains, sparks? In the end there may only be around 30,000 to 50,000 troops on the ground, that are actual combat infantry. As
you can see this reduces your point and displays the true level of combat infantry that are available.

Sooo if you use say the principle of 2 thirds to a half of numbers being in logistical or support roles that impressive 2 million to cut to 700,000 to
1 million combat troops. Aka Boots on the ground.

Tone aside, when would the US ever need to get to a 1:1 ratio in anything? Frankly, with our superior technology and high level training, along with
great logistics etc, the US will never need an equal number of jets or ships or tanks as the enemy.

I agree, good logistics, great technology, hmm high level of training… maybe in your other arms, but frankly for the US ARMY, their training is piss
poor, in my opinion, just slightly better than a conscript army, your entry requirements aren’t exactly tasking.

All I can say is this...

The US Marine Corps inflicted the highest kill ratio in the history of modern combat.

A division of less then 12,500 Marines destroyed 7 divisions each of which were more then 16,500. This while outnumbered 29:1 and surrounded by 22
divisions. This is in that war where the US got "a rude awakening"

Hmm,
American Mad man, you have a problem, something we won’t be able to help you with, its a cultural thing I suppose, american supermen saving the
world through any means possible. Always the heros, I ask the same thing as some one has already asked, remove that Stars and stripes from your eyes
and at least look at the truth.

Its a fact of life that the US military aren't the most respected of forces on the planet.

Sadly some of the comments made by the liberal media, are correct, large quota of blue on blue incidents, on their own troops and Allies, tactical and
operational mistakes and the use of interrogation on pow for intelligence.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.